Scrimmage.
- Thread starter boilercss
- Start date
yes all 14 of fletcher’s points were in the 3rd period
you might’ve combined Heide with Barrett who was 0-3 from deep
I don’t see Zach and Trey getting a lot of minutes together for this very reason. Caleb and Trey is a complementary combo I am really excited about for next year. Two skilled bigs who can really move.
I would agree if the had someone that was a great 3-point shooter, cutter and post-entry passer to put on the floor at the 4...but, they don't...and they did not a year ago either, and, it genuinely sucked to have one of the two/three best players ALWAYS sitting on the bench.
I agree in general that it may be more than just a case of having your 5 best players on the floor, but, it should not be a lot different than that barring something REALLY unique.
Edey will absolutely be the focal point of the offense, but, that Furst (one of the better players) will not start in that he will be backing Edey up largely, or Trey may play less...solely because Edey will be the focal point does not bode well for Purdue...those guys are too good to be sitting on the bench or for Purdue to not taking advantage of what they offer as well.
ivey's sheer ability allowed for Purdue to be able to survive still with one of its best players on the bench at all times...this team does not have a player of that regard to allow for that.
Purdue/Painter has to figure out a way to be able to have guys on the floor that he was not able to with Williams...Trey is more skilled and can do more things, so, it should not be the issue that it was with Tre.
Last edited:
Excellent post and this is exactly what I meant when I said your 5 best need to be on the floor as much as possible. If we use that same rotation again this season where one of your best players is ALWAYS sitting on the bench it won't go well. I challenge anyone on here to name another team from last season that never played there 5 best players together besides PU. Early in the season we called it "depth" but it was really a poor roster configuration that always kept 1 of our top 3 guys sitting.
CMP's challenge is to figure out a way to have the best players on the floor as many minutes as possible. Sounds obvious but it certainly wasn't the case last season and I hope won't be repeated again this year.
Well, it would help if he recruited better guards. IMO our top four players are at the 4 and 5 position. So we're likely going to have two of our better players on the bench at all times.
I've said this before, arguably our best 2 players (or at least 2 of 3) were 5th and 6th in minutes played last year. That's a problem.
If Purdue goes into the season thinking Edey, Furst, TKR and Gillis are going to split 80 minutes at the 4 and 5 we're going to have the same issue. Your best players should be playing close to 30 minutes a game. Edey may not be capable of playing 30 minutes given his size but the other three are.
A bigger lineup can work. Painter has done it before. Hass/Hammons, Swanigan and V. Edwards started together in 2016/2017 and ended up 12th in the final AP Poll. On that team Painter moved Mathias out of the starting lineup his sophomore year after he started as a freshmen. If Painter can move Mathias out of the starting lineup and make it work, he should be able to make room for Gillis, Furst or TKR to play the three instead of the other options available on this years team.
Painter’s challenge will be the lineup for making a deep run in March might not feature his most efficient scorer which is Edey.
Wins in March >>>>> Big Ten wins.
Wins in March >>>>> Big Ten wins.
I really think Loyer will have a lot of plays ran for him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him average 12 to 14 pts. a game. Will it happen right off the bat? Not real sure just yet. Braden will be the distributor, so not sure he will put up huge numbers, but both players will have a greater upside to our defense too. I am looking forward to that.
14 ppg? I don't think you realize how insane that would be for him. For a freshman of loyers caliber I would say 6 ppg is much more realistic, and probably about where he'll end up.
Well you asked. Maybe it is unrealistic, but I have also been following some in depth stuff from guys who have been watching him. I can ALWAYS admit if I am wrong. I have no problem with that at all.
I'm not hating, and was genuinely curious. Was just shocked that's what you think he'll average. For the record, I would be thrilled if he was that good. Would increase our chances exponentially of making a run in March.
I understand your points and agree with some of them but generally disagree with how you reached your conclusions. I agree that it was frustrating to have Zach and Trevion limited to a total of 40 mpg last year. I think I'm hearing you say that if last year's team had not had Jaden, the team would have been best off if MP had played Zach and Trevion together. I fundamentally disagree with that conclusion because their skill sets were not complimentary.
With regard to having a four who shoots the three, cuts and makes entry passes at a high level, you have two guys who do two of the three exceptionally in Mason and Caleb. Maybe Trey ends up doing that as well and he plays more minutes with Zach than I'm anticipating.
Zach is likely to play 25 mpg. I'd expect Mason to play 15 to 22 mpg alongside him I'd expect that Caleb would play the other minutes with Zach when Mason is not on the floor and that Mason will play limited minutes alongside Caleb or Trey. I'm not sure how you'd rather see the remaining 55 minutes for the 4 and 5 (assuming Zach takes 25).
Perhaps.
Watching it for fun.
Comments made were my opinion and do not reflect the viewpoints of this station.
No animals were harmed during this post.
Employees of GBI and their families are not eligible. 0% interest for 36 months.
How big is Gillis? He looks like he’s 6-5/6-6, I find it odd that for brief minutes he can’t play or defend the 3 spot. In High School I imagine he handled the ball and posted up, now it seems he’s nothing but a 4, I’m no expert but I think he’s undersized in the 4 slot.
I know you weren't addressing me but I think Dag, SC and I are kind of in the same camp on this one. It's not so much we think Zach and Trevion should have played together. It's the fact that CMP didn't think they could that is the problem we don't want to see repeated. If your roster configuration is such that you are constantly (that means ALWAYS) having one of your best players on the bench its a problem. The majority of the minutes should have your best players on the floor. If your best players can't or don't compliment each other then you have the roster wrong.
I will speak for myself now. What prompted my earlier comment was when either you or someone else had said something about Furst being on the bench to start because Gillis would be a better pairing with Zach. It just reminded me too much of last season when we started out by patting ourselves on the back for all the "depth" we had. When in reality it was really a case of our best players not being able to be on the floor at the same time. maybe I'm fretting about nothing. I recognize that is a real possibility. I just was so frustrated last year when 1 of our top 3 were always on the bench.
For comparison, Malachi Branham was the composite # 38 national recruit, was last year's B1G freshman of the year, and was a one and done who was the 20th pick in the NBA draft.
He averaged 13.7 points, 3.6 rebounds and two assists per game.
Could Loyer be the B1G freshman of the year? Sure, but that's the level of accomplishment he would need to go with those stats. I think people underestimate scoring averages in a 40 minute game with 8-10 player rotations.
Dry already hit on it...I am NOT advocating that absent Jaden, Zach and Tre would have needed to play together.
To Dry's point...eliminate any/all names...the issue was/is roster composition if you have one of your best players ALWAYS sitting on the bench...it really should never happen, barring some crazy circumstance, and, my point with respect to those individuals mentioned was that it only worked for Purdue because of Ivey's skillset. Irrelevant as it already happened and is what it is, but, the idea that Purdue may yet again have one (or more) of its best players on the bench at ALL times because they can't be on the floor together is an issue...one that already presented, and, one that Painter needs to figure out a way to resolve.
Zach is indeed going to play 25 mpg, but, the idea that Caleb loses minutes as a result just because he is backing him up does not seem like a brilliant plan. And, just being frank, Trey is more talented and a better basketball player than either Mason or Caleb, so, your suggestion (and, I know it is only a guess or what not) that he would see even less minutes due to his game maybe not complementing Zach is an even bigger issue.
Zach is Purdue's literal centerpiece...Trey is probably its next genuine best player...Furst right up there from a talent standpoint...the idea that someone like Morton should/will play more minutes just because he happens to be a different position per se, despite not being nearly as talented, is crazy...it is not because he is better...it is not because his game better complements Zach...it is not because Purdue is better with him on the floor than not...it is merely a means to an end to have someone else on the floor aside of one of the 3 better/best players because of their positions...rather than their skills (and, I say all of that admittedly feeling like Tre can/should/will see time at the 3).
Purdue's strength and best players are in the front court...I don't know how it gets worked out, nor do I need to...that is on Painter...but, in some form or fashion, he needs to find a way to play with those guys on the floor more often than not, and, play through them as well.
I completely sympathize with your frustration. The problem with the roster imbalance is that this isn't the NBA, you don't get to build your roster like a GM would (at least not yet) and you need to take talent where you can get it.
It's not like Painter passed on an all conference / borderline AA player at another position to pick up Zach and Trevion. He was skilled and fortunate to find and develop two outstanding players, it's just unfortunate that they played the same position. Same for the 4 and 5 spots this year. We didn't turn away all conference caliper players at other positions to stockpile Caleb, Tre, Mason and Zach at two positions, we were fortunate to sign both Caleb and Tre when Mason and Zach were already on board.
Also agree that it's worrisome that this year's backcourt is untested but that's mostly a function of having two seniors and a lottery pick in the back court last year. We'll find out soon, but I don't think that means that Ethan and Brandon aren't good players, they were just buried on the depth chart.
You're putting a lot of stock in a player that has never played a college game. I hope he's amazing. You are always entitled to your opinion, but I'll put my trust in Painter in believing that Tre isn't a fit at the 3, at least for this year.
See my other post on roster composition. This isn't a draft or a free agency acquisition game. You take really talented players when you can get them. Sometimes they play the same position or don't have skills that work well together. I agree that that can be frustrating.
I saw a headline where we play Cincinnati over the weekend but maybe tonight since it is secret 🤐.
Taking really talented players and not playing them does not make sense...for them, or, for Purdue. That is not a matter of frustration...it is just common sense. No other team ALWAYS has one of its best players sitting on the bench just because they have someone else at their position (more so now than ever with all of the "positionless basketball"), or, because they don't have complementary styles per se.
I am putting a lot of stock in him, as, at the HS/AAU level, he was better and more skilled than both. Knowing what they have done, no real reason to believe that Trey won't have similar results.
Trey can play the 3 to an extent...not his ideal position certainly (stretch 4), but, he can play it, and, with this roster composed as it is, it makes sense that he does at times...again, he needs to be on the floor...so does Edey...so does Furst..so does Gillis...imperative to find a way to get 3 of the 4 on the floor more often than not, and, in this case, it means minutes for Trey at the 3 (especially in that there is nobody there as talented as him, or, better than him).
Last edited:
I apologize, I'm not following. Is your argument that we should have not signed Tre (or maybe Zach or Caleb, etc.) if it produced possible redundancy? What if a player gets hurt or leaves early for the NBA? No one passes on really talented players who want to come to their school because they might have too much talent at a certain position.
Talented guys don't go to places where they will not get to showcase their skills...
If indeed there is no way to have those guys on the floor together, then, yes...it was a bad idea to accumulate talent so that it can sit next to the HC most of the time...may be the case that neither of those guys really care about it, but, won't be the case with everyone if that is a model that is followed.
Purdue did not get the most out of Furst a year ago, and, redshirted Trey...would be crazy to waste yet another year simply because they have a really good Center.
Again, figure out how to make it work opposed to making excuses as to why it does not or won't.
IDK Dag, I think you're off base with this one. You never really know how talent is going to work out. Either Trey or ZE could have been complete busts especially ZE. Did you think he was going to be an all American? How much grief would Painter be given if he passed on ZE because he already had Trey?
We have defensive issues as it is. Having one of our 4s try to play the 3 would only make that worse.
Having front court depth and good players on the bench is a good 'problem'. This would not even be a discussion if TKR had committed elsewhere, but Purdue would be a worse team overall, less athletic, more prone to foul trouble, less able to overcome an injury, less competition, etc.
Maybe it is just a round-about way of calling into question scholarship allocation by position and skill, which is a reasonable discussion. The lack of depth at point/combo guard is apparent, look no further than the team photo. This doesn't mean that you are wasting talented players like TKR or Furst. It means you lack talented players at other positions and probably should have taken a guard in the 2021 class. The odd man out in that class wasn't TKR or Furst.
Maybe it is just a round-about way of calling into question scholarship allocation by position and skill, which is a reasonable discussion. The lack of depth at point/combo guard is apparent, look no further than the team photo. This doesn't mean that you are wasting talented players like TKR or Furst. It means you lack talented players at other positions and probably should have taken a guard in the 2021 class. The odd man out in that class wasn't TKR or Furst.
Let me be clear. If Tre is an absolute stud, a freshman AA type, which is not outside of the realm of possibility, they will find him minutes. It's not going to be 30 mpg and it's not going to be at the 3, but you could see something like Zach - 24 mpg, Tre - 22 mpg, Caleb - 19 mpg, Mason - 15 mpg.
I do not, however, understand the idea that you should turn away talented players who want to come to Purdue and are willing to wait, because they won't play big minutes as a freshman. I do not understand the idea that you should just 'figure it out' and put players whose skills don't work together, on the floor at the same time.
The position allocation question is reasonable, but if you follow Purdue recruiting you know that 1) Painter had just signed Morton and Ivey the class before, so it made sense that a combo guard was not a priority and 2) of the handful of players they recruited they missed out on the Christie kid to MSU and on Wesley, who ended up at Notre Dame, and both are out of CBB at this point anyway. Anyone they could have realistically signed by the time they realized Ivey might leave early likely wouldn't be better than Loyer at the point anyway.
It actually reinforces the point that you need to overstock at a position because you never know when a player will wash out or leave early.
I know TKR did not come to Purdue with the idea of being "willing to wait" for anything, and, I have no idea how it plays out obviously, but, my guess is that if he is playing 15 mpg or less, that, he may not be thrilled about that...who knows whether that is truly the case or what it would even mean if it were, but, I am confident that he did not come to Purdue with the idea of not getting meaningful minutes or being impactful until year 3 (and, even then, if Zach returns...and I believe that he will (assuming Purdue at some point between now and then does actually figure out NIL), it won't be year 3 potentially even).
My guess is that Furst won't love the idea of being a backup for 2 more years either.
Even if both were ok, Purdue is not better as a result...Purdue is not better with those guys sitting on the bench..to your point, they are indeed wasting talent.
I have no idea what Trey will do this year, but, I know that coming in and out of HS, he was a better player with a better skill set than either Mason or Caleb...those guys have both had some success...no reason to think that Trey will not, but, if he is only playing 15 mpg, and, doing so simply because he happens to play the same position...that just does not make sense...for him, or, for Purdue.
Again, if Morton is playing more simply because he is a more traditional 3 arguably, despite not being an actual better player...it does not make sense...and, while it is not Trey's best or most natural position, if it means getting him on the floor rather than sitting next to the HC on the bench...that does make sense.
Depth, and, quality depth...outstanding (just look at football where it does not exist). Having one of your best players on the bench at ALL times...not outstanding...for the player, or, for Purdue.
Yes, there is definitely a conversation worth having as to scholarship allocation and roster construction if it leads the latter.
The issue is not that he recruited either...the issue was that they could not play together, so, one of Purdue's best players was always out of the game. In their case, it was because they played the same position ultimately. That, however, is not the case with Edey, Furst and Trey...Furst can play the 4...Trey can play the 3...there are ways to have them on the floor...neither should be sacrificing minutes just because Zach is getting the majority of them (and should be).
You don't generally recruit two guys to play the same position in a class, just in case one does not work out or in hopes that one will.
If Furst can't get on the floor because Zach is there...that does not bode well, for him, and, potentially for Purdue. If Trey can't either, it is even more of an issue, as, those two guys are two of the highest-rated recruits that Painter has had, and, both are very talented players...too good for that matter to not be playing, and, playing a lot.
Similar threads
